RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2006-02962
                                       INDEX CODE:  131.03
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                  COUNSEL: NONE

                                             HEARING DESIRED:  YES


MANDATORY CASE COMPLETION DATE:  31 March 2008


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His Officer Performance Report (OPR), for the period 2 June 2005 through  13
December 2005 be replaced with the submitted OPR, which reflects  his  award
of the 2005  Headquarters  United  States  Air  Force  Field  Grade  Officer
Personnel Manager of the Year (PMOY) Award.  Additionally,  his  records  be
reconsidered by a Special Selection Board (SSB) for  the  P0506A  Lieutenant
Colonel (Lt Col) Central Selection Board (CSB).

In the applicant’s response to the Air Force advisory opinion, he submits  a
revised DD Form 149 to amend  his  requests  to  add  removal  of  his  OPRs
closing 20 November 1993, 20 November 1994, and 1 June 2002.   In  addition,
his OPRs closing 13 December 2005 and 10 June  2006  be  replaced  with  the
submitted signed OPRs, and his Promotion Recommendation Form (PRF)  for  the
P0506A Lt Col CSB on file be replaced with the  submitted  revised  PRF  for
the P0506A Lt Col CSB.  If the Board denies his request for removal  of  his
1993, 1994, and 2002 OPRs, he  still  requests  SSB  consideration  for  the
P0506A Lt Col CSB.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His award was announced less than one month after the close out date of  his
13 December 2005 OPR.  His rater requested an  extension  of  the  close-out
date to allow inclusion of the award through his  senior  rater  in  January
2006; however, for some unknown reason the request was denied.  He was  told
during his nonselect counseling that not having the award accomplishment  in
his record definitely hurt his chances for promotion.

In support of his original application, the applicant provides  an  unsigned
substitute OPR with an extended close-out date of 13 January  2006,  and  an
undated personal letter,  with  attachments,  to  AFPC/DPPPO  requesting  an
extension to his 13 December 2005 OPR evaluation period.

The applicant’s original submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A-1.

In the applicant’s revised DD Form 149, submitted with his rebuttal  to  the
Air Force advisory opinion, he contends the Professional Military  Education
(PME) recommendation was omitted  from  his  1993  OPR  as  reprisal  for  a
critical review he wrote of a training  program  run  by  a  close  personal
friend of his commander at the time.  Block VII of his 1994 OPR was  written
with undue influence from a general officer, whose intent was  for  reprisal
against him because he would not lie for the  general.   References  to  his
strong leadership and a PME recommendation were omitted from  block  VII  of
his 2002 OPR as reprisal  due  to  a  false  rumor  that  his  senior  rater
believed to be true without investigating.

The applicant reiterates his contention that his senior rater  requested  an
extension to the  rating  period  of  his  headquarters  (HQ)  directed  OPR
closing 13 December 2005, to allow the inclusion  of  his  PMOY  Award.   He
feels the award is of serious/significant  importance  because  it  measures
him against all of his peers in the personnel community  throughout  all  HQ
USAF agencies and directorates,  to  include  HQ  USAF/A1.   The  award  was
announced less than a month after the closeout  of  his  2005  OPR  and  the
P0506A Lt Col CSB did not convene until 6 March  2006,  allowing  sufficient
time for the award to be included.  He was only aware of the  award  because
his rater  and  senior  rater  emailed  him  at  his  deployed  location  to
congratulate him.  His rater informed him that they were working  with  AFPC
through his senior rater’s office to get  the  December  2005  OPR  closeout
date extended so that the award would  be  included  in  the  OPR.   He  was
deployed in support of the  Global  War  on  Terrorism  operations  from  29
October 2005 to 12 May 2006 and did not see the December 2005 or  subsequent
PRF until 15 May 2006.

Submitted as additional support with his revised application, the  applicant
provides a personal statement; signed substitute  OPRs  closing  13  January
2006 and 10 July 2006; a substitute PRF for the P0506A Lt Col  CSB;  letters
of support from his rater, additional raters  and  Management  Level  Review
(MLR) president; and duplicate copies of  the  attachments  with  his  first
submission.

The applicant’s revised submission, with attachments, is at Exhibit A-2.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

The applicant is currently serving on active duty  in  the  grade  of  major
with a date of rank of 1 May  2001.   The  military  personnel  data  system
reflects his Total Active Federal Military Service Date as 18 July 1987  and
a Total Active Federal Commissioned  Service  date  of  30  May  1990.   The
applicant has two non-selections to the grade of  lieutenant  colonel  (O-5)
by the P0505A and P0506A Lieutenant Colonel CSBs.

The following is a resume of the applicant’s performance ratings:

      PERIOD ENDING                     OVERALL EVALUATION

      20 Nov 93 (1st Lt) *                         MS
      20 Nov 94 (Capt) *                           MS
      20 Nov 95                              MS
      26 Apr 96                              Training Report (TR)
      20 Nov 96                              MS
      20 Nov 97                              MS
      20 Nov 98                               MS
       1 Jun 99                                    MS
       1 Jun 00                                    MS
       1 Jun 01 (Major)                            MS
       1 Jun 02 *                             MS
      28 Jun 02                         (Education/Training Report)
       1 Jun 03                                    MS
       1 Jun 04                                    MS
       1 Jun 05                                    MS
      13 Dec 05 *                             MS
      10 Jul 06 *                             MS


      * Contested Reports


On 13 September 2006,  the  Board  considered  and  denied  the  applicant’s
request for SSB consideration by the P0506A Lt Col CSB for  the  applicant’s
contention that his letter to the board president was not part  of  his  “as
met” record.  For details of the Board’s decision, please see  the  “13  Sep
06 Board Decision” Tab under Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s request to  substitute  his
13 December 2005 OPR.   Since  they  are  recommending  denial,  AFPC/DPPPO,
finds no basis for SSB consideration.  DPPPEP states AFI 36-2406,  paragraph
3.7.5., indicates “if an incident  or  event  occurs  between  the  time  an
annual report closes and the time it become a matter of record  that  is  of
such serious significance that inclusion in that  report  is  warranted,  an
extension of the close-out date  must  be  requested.”   This  paragraph  is
applicable to pending  administrative  actions  and  was  not  intended  for
awards.  Additionally, DPPPEP never received a request for extension of  the
close-out date  for  the  applicant.   The  information  of  his  award  was
available prior to the OPR becoming a matter of  record  on  6  March  2006;
however, the selection of the award was mentioned in his next  OPR  (closing
10 July 2006), making  it  inadmissible  in  his  December  2005  OPR.   The
inclusion of an award on an OPR is optional; the mere  fact  that  an  award
was not mentioned does not make the report inaccurate or unjust and are  not
grounds to support a favorable appeal.

For a member to effectively challenge/correct an  OPR  after  it  becomes  a
matter of record, he or she must provide clear evidence that the report  was
unjust or inaccurate as written.  Additionally, the member  must  provide  a
substitute report that is signed by all the original evaluators as  well  as
supporting documentation from all these evaluators.  The applicant  provided
no support that the report was inaccurate or unjust as written.

On 6 February 2006, the applicant wrote to the 13 March 2006  CSB;  however,
chose not to inform the CSB of his PMOY Award selection.

The DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit B.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In the applicant’s rebuttal to the Air Force  advisory  opinion,  he  states
the  letters  submitted  with  his  original  appeal  are  to  support   his
contentions for removal of his 1993, 1994, and 2002  OPRs,  not  replacement
of his 2005 OPR.  The documents support his contention  that  his  1994  OPR
was unjust.  He understands the “premise” concept that OPRs  are  considered
fair and accurate at the time they become an official matter of  record  and
that changes subsequent to the  time  the  OPR  is  considered  an  official
matter  of  record  require  the  consent  of  the  original  rating  chain.
However, when the rating chain is the  problem,  there  is  no  recourse  to
correct the situation when the  premise  is  based  on  personal  bias.   He
submitted  letters  to  the  P0505A   and   P0506A   CSBs   explaining   the
circumstances of those  OPRs  but  on  neither  occasion  were  the  letters
processed and included in his “as met” board record.

Despite his previous unsuccessful efforts to have his  1993  and  1994  OPRs
removed from his records, his line number to  major  was  307,  placing  him
well within the top 15% of those selected for major  at  that  time.   Since
his promotion to major in 2001, his performance and level of  responsibility
has not curtailed in any way, shape, or form, and has consistently  exceeded
all standards of measure.  His  level  of  responsibility  and  demonstrated
performance during his field grade officer  years  have  not  warranted  the
difference between him being in the top 15% of those selected for  major  in
2001 to the bottom 28% of those competing for Lt Col in 2005 and 2006.

The applicant’s  rebuttal  is  at  Exhibit  E  (revised  DD  Form  149  with
attachments is at Exhibit A-2).

_________________________________________________________________

REVISED AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPPEP recommends denial of the applicant’s requests to substitute  his
P0506A PRF, 13 December 2005, and 10 July 2006 OPRs and, to void his 1  June
2002, 20 November 1994,  and  20 November  1993  OPRs.   DPPPEP  states  the
applicant  has  failed  to  substantiate  that  any  of  the  reports   were
inaccurate or unjust as written.  Base on their recommendation,  the  Chief,
Officer  Promotion,  Appointments,   and   Selective   Continuation   Branch
(AFPC/DPPPO), finds no basis to grant SSB consideration.

DPPPEP states the applicant’s  appeal  was  considered  and  denied  by  the
Evaluation Reports Appeal Board (ERAB).  In  reference  to  the  applicant’s
1993, 1994, and 2002 OPRs, the  applicant  has  provided  no  evidence  that
substantiates reprisal other than the allegation made  in  his  application.
The  applicant’s  requests  to  void  his  reports  are  based   purely   on
unsubstantiated conjecture about the motives of his  evaluators.   There  is
no substantiated evidence produced to prove reprisal on the part of  any  of
the evaluators involved.

DPPPEP states in reference to the applicant’s request to substitute  his  13
December  2005  OPR,  neither  AFI  36-2406,  nor  the  governing   Military
Personnel Flight Memorandum, permit  extensions  for  the  sole  purpose  of
adding an award.  Directed by Headquarters Air Force  reports  can  only  be
extended in order to provide the necessary 60 days of  supervision.   On  13
December 2005, his supervisor had 195 days of supervision,  eliminating  the
possibility of an  extension.   Since  there  is  no  legitimate  reason  to
correct the applicant’s report, replacing the 2006 report is  not  required.
In reference to the applicant’s request to substitute his  P0506A  PRF,  the
applicant’s award of the PMOY award was  known  at  the  time  the  PRF  was
written and could have been placed in the PRF; however, being  omitted  does
not make the PRF inaccurate.

DPPPEP states it is evident the applicant  is  not  motivated  by  purported
injustices in his OPRs, but by promotion non-selection.  The purpose of  the
appeal process is not to improve the applicant’s  promotion  potential,  but
to correct errors or injustices.  Neither  error  nor  injustice  exists  in
this case.  A report is  not  erroneous  or  unfair  because  the  applicant
believes it contributed to a  non-selection  for  promotion  or  may  impact
future  promotion  or  career  opportunites.   The  simple  willingness   by
evaluators to upgrade, rewrite, or void a report is not a  valid  basis  for
doing so.  The applicant must prove the report is erroneous or unjust  based
on its content.  Any report can  be  rewritten  to  be  harder  hitting,  to
provide  embellishments,  or  enhance  the  ratee’s   promotion   potential;
however, the time to do that is  before  the  report  becomes  a  matter  of
record.  None of the supporters of the applicant’s appeal explain  how  they
were  hindered  from  rendering  fair  and  accurate  assessments   of   the
applicant’s performance prior to the reports being made a matter of  record.
 The appeals process does not exist  to  recreate  history  or  enhance  the
applicant’s chances for promotion.  As such, DPPPEP  is  not  convinced  the
contested reports are  not  accurate  as  written  and;  therefore,  do  not
support the applicant’s requests for removal and replacement.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF REVISED AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Subsequent to the Board’s decision  on  25  September  2007,  the  applicant
submitted a personal letter with attachments as proof of  his  complaint  to
the Secretary of the Air Force (SAF) on 29 April 1995  of  unfair  treatment
and injustice  in  regard  to  his  annual  performance  report  closing  20
November 1994.  The  package  includes  responses  from  the  SAF  Inspector
General’s office with their findings of no unfair treatment or injustice.

The applicant’s rebuttal, with attachments, is at Exhibit H.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of an error or an injustice.  We took notice  of  the  applicant's
complete submission in judging the merits of the  case;  however,  we  agree
with the opinion and recommendation of  the  Air  Force  office  of  primary
responsibility and adopt its rationale as the basis for our conclusion  that
the applicant has not been the victim of an error or injustice.   Therefore,
in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we find no compelling  basis  to
recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issues involved.   Therefore,  the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.

__________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the  application  was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only  be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant  evidence  not
considered with this application.

__________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Sessions on 25 September 2007 and 9 October 2007, under  the  provisions  of
AFI 36-2603:

                 Mr. James W. Russell, III, Panel Chair
                 Mr. Don H. Kendrick, Member
                 Ms. Josephine L. Davis, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered in connection with  AFBCMR
Docket Number BC-2006-02962:

      Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 18 Oct 06 & 15 May 07,
                        w/atchs
      Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
      Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 16 Nov 06.
      Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 1 Dec 06.
      Exhibit E.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 9 May 07.
      Exhibit F.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 2 Jul 07.
      Exhibit G.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 6 Aug 07.
      Exhibit H.  Applicant’s Rebuttal, dated 26 Sep 07, w/atchs.




                                  JAMES W. RUSSELL, III
                                                   Panel Chair